and the conservative right states for eisel and officious they don't care. it's the opposite. rent states of the most personally generous and give more money to charity because they let the states do it. we have to take that back and read what one person at that time everyone has to decide how we help the less fortunate? how do i deal with social issues in my neighborhood and deal with the issue of unwed motherhood and so many kids in houses without dads. we have to do the best we can. you helping someone is far better than a bureaucrat. ..

>> they tried to establish prayer in public schools, but the supreme court struck it down because they said it -- what's the word i'm looking for -- goes against the establishment clause and establishes religion, and that's something that goes against the constitution, it's unconstitutional, and i'll cite founding fathers, and james madison known as the quote-on-quote father of the constitution was weary of combining church and state. why are you such a proponent of having church and state --

>> when did i propose church and state together? >> i thought that's what you said in the beginning. >> no. i said jefferson's letter in the constitution does not separate religious people and values from government. i didn't suggest that we need the church of curvey, okay? i don't want the church teaching my kids how to pray or the state teaching my kids how to pray or the state to be hostile to people of faith or be morally neutral to the society. the founders didn't intend that, but intented for our values in society to be influenced by religious values, but they department want a particular nomination or power to have that power. i'm suggesting what jefferson wrote in the letter was the wall of separation between church and state not what the liberals interpreted to be today that liberals should hide in the corner. go to church, tbu don't bother us in society.

they were religious people, and the values influenced what they did. the question of the establishment, you're right, do we provide government support? i don't think we should. i think president bush was wrong with his program when we came to office in providing government support to church agencies to provide assistance to the poor because government help comes government entanglement and government control. if a churchments to help feed the poor, that's great. don't rely on federal help to do that. if you want to work through the tax system, fine, but we don't need government assists religion, not in my way. i'd never support that. i'm a lutheran, there's only # ,000 -- 3,000 of us. they misinterpreted what jefferson wanted and took it to the extreme that there's no room for people of faith to the public square and i disagree for it as a rule or whether it's the

founding fathers intended. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> i'm blanks -- >> were you wearing the jacket earlier? >> i was. >> just wake me up, okay. [laughter] >> as you know, we discussed this before how i personally feel about relig and conservatism, and in regards to church and state what it sounds what you explained to us is that at least in america our resolutions succeeded because founding fathers had faith, values, christianity, and that's what made us different from the other revolutions. my question for you is if we don't have separation of church and state, what stops islam from using the same justification? the islamist population is growing across the world and the united states and with that comes sharia law. use the same justification through congress or -- >> no, because i don't believe in the establishment of religion, and sharia law is the establishment of society.

islam does not separate civil and religious law. sharia law, you have the cleats, one authority both civil and religious. we never had that. we fought that war out in the 14 # -- 1400s, and for the most part. the right part won. when i say "separation of church and state" i'm not saying they should be together, but i believe there is a religious ethic that infuses society and our philosophy to recognize, accept, and follow, but we're not self-governing for very long. look at the declaration. we hold these truths, truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal, and our rights come from god. if you don't accept that, to be honest with you, if you are atheist, let's talk about this over a beer. [laughter] if we're found on the idea of god creating us and giving us rights, how do you reconcile that with a lack of faith? i want to know. i'm not judging or saying you're

not good americans, but the faith is so essential to the country that you can't take a letter jefferson wrote and exile people of faith and be hostile to faith. nothing in the constitution says you can't say a prayer before a basketball game. there's nothing that says you can't have a bible class in a public school, but you canted have one denomination get special treatment from the government. >> nevertheless, when you think about -- look at the politicians and voting. you got people who stand for rule of law. >> right. >> they believe in no murder, no stealing, no rape, believe in the constitution, enforce it, that's how they make laws. >> right. >> what happens if we elect a politician who does not create policies or laws from this philosophy? an example is sharia law. they have faith and justify it by saying creator might mean alla and what they were told was they have to act in sharia law. >> but the constitution would not allow that. the constitution would not allow

that. >> if the constitution doesn't allow that, then the constitution in theory does not allow christianity in any sense. >> doesn't allow the catholic church to be the church of america, and i don't want that. you don't have to be hostile to people of faith and there's no room for faith because documents are riddled with references to god. if there is no god, then what's with the constitution? >> i mean, it does say, you know, the creator -- >> and supreme judge. >> we know the constitution is up for interpretation, which is why we have the supreme court which is why we have liberals and democrats argue over different parts of the constitutions. >> right. >> in theory, couldn't they interpret it differently -- >> if you don't allow establishment of religion, which first amendment doesn't allow, you can't have sharia law in this country and be constitutional. [applause] i mean, you couldn't -- [cheers and applause] >> no, no, langston, just like -- [applause] >> no, just like you can't have

cannon law or lutheran law or catholic law. i'm a lutheran, i don't want that law -- are you kidding? [laughter] it doesn't say you have to bar people of faith, and so, yeah, they can try it. you know, if the country was 53% muslim and they changed the constitution and put in sharia law, if you believe in democracy, i guess that's how it happens -- >> i agree with that. >> i don't think the constitution allows that. i believe in a republic, okay? [cheers and applause] they have to amend the constitution, and you know what? if they amend the constitution to allow it, if they amend the constitution to allow it, let's go somewhere else and find a free society because it's dead here. >> it was just a concern. >> no, no, i understand. if you don't allow the establishment of a specific church, and if you have the constitution protect you, unless they change the constitution, it can't happen, and if they change the constitution, i'm with you, let's go somewhere else. america without the declaration

and the constitution is not america. [applause] right? okay. good enough. [applause] yes, sir? >> i'm rick, and i attend college in branson, missouri. my question for you is i'd like to know what your personal inion is much david barton? i understand he is big into going back to historical documents here in america. >> right. >> mainly a lot of sermons from pastors back in colonial times, and i know it's appeared on fox news a couple times with glenn beck. >> right. >> my question is do you think that he is a good historian, or do you think he can take things out of context such as letters he will use to have ideas such as a letter with john adams between him and thomas jefferson discussing the holy spirit and what he reads a part of the letter from adams discussing the

holy spirit and sounds like he supports it, but if you read the letter, he's making fun of people who believe in the holy spirit. >> i think david -- okay, i'm the kind of guy who wants to read a history book more than anything else, but i think he's 80% right. i think david barton goes too far in suggesting the people were orthodox christians. to be honest, it doesn't matter. i'll find out one day whether they were orthodox christians, but i don't think it matters as much as that these men and women, the few women involved, had the christian world view. whether jefferson was an orthodox christian or not is religious relative because you read the deck lar right, he had a world view and acted on that, and that's what shaped this country. i don't think, from what i read of jefferson, who knows -- he could have changed on his death bed, i don't know that. these people sometimes go

through phases. i suspect you go through times when your faith is stronger than when it's not. >> uh-huh. >> there's times of temptation where faith is weak. why do i believe that stuff? then consequences come, and, yeah, you believe it. you have to keep in mind if you take one book, one later, okay, as opposed to the adams and jefferson who wrote thousands of letters and became good friends, enemy in the beginning, and religion was part of the reason they were an enemy because adams was a staunch christian more than jefferson was, and they had differences on that. they wrote for 50 years. they can change their minds. you have to read the whole thing, take the whole thing into consideration to see what they were really thinking and understand, hey, there's times when my faith has been weak, no question, but if i wrote a letter in those times, it would be different. i think david sometimes pick things, cherry picks rather than the overall pictures and make judgments i'm not so sure are called for. i don't know what's in jefer --

jefferson's heard. i'm prepared to say he adopted a christian world view. god as judge, law giver, creator, and god as protecter. that's not a 50/50 god. that's not a tree. that's jewish-chic ran god, and he accepted that as the world view. >> thank you, appreciate it. >> you bet. >> hi. >> two me. okay. ladies first, and then back to you. >> my name's katrina, and i go to eastern washington university. >> go eagles. >> yep. >> okay. >> i know you were in washington state -- >> i live in duval, yep. >> okay. i know you haven't touched on the topic of so much liberals or influence in education, but i know that you have mentioned about a proactive on our

campuses, and so i was wondering what your opinions are, especially at eastern washington university, a lot of problems there with liberal professors. >> really? no doubt. >> yes. i wondered your naughts on that -- thoughts on that and what you think we should be doing, and not just trying to convince our peers to think or understand where we are coming from, like our conservative point of views, but also our liberal professors, how should we approach them? >> approach them as souls needing salvation. [applause] >> okay? prayer. no, i would say that i'll give you a couple words of advice. first off, something pope john paul ii told the polish people, be not afraid. be not afraid. have courage. use discernment. you know, if taking on a professor means you're flunking a class, use discernment. may not be worth it at that

particular time, but remember that if you're in a class with 60 people, and you say, you know, professor, i doubt that, can i tell you something? of the 59, some will say, hey, she makes sense, and they may never come and talk to you, but, you never know who you touch that way, and you may touch somebody who goes on to do something really great. with your friends, have a sense of humor. they don't. we do. i think, you know, look, most people become conservative due to real life, like something happens to them, car is stolen, government tells them how to do something with their land, an employer and their taxes go up. be prepared when the window opens, when the door opens and they say, you what happened to me? blah blah, be prepared to say, have you thought of it this way? what would this had done? what if the government did this rather than that? be ready. have a civil discussion, and if they get this civil and they

have to because they can't argue facts or call you names, say stick with the facts. don't let them drive-by shoot, boom, boom, boom, we were talking about a, talk b later. bring them back to a and have a cool discussion with them about it. it will sink in. >> okay. >> you have to have courage. you have to have character. you have to have conviction. you know, i'm bias, but study of history tells me what we believe is right. you know, historical evidence of what we believe is right. the american revolution succeeded and capitalism brought prosperity. the french and russian revolution, communism brought 100 million dead people, and they say they just didn't do it right. we can do it better. no, no, they don't understand. you can't do it at all. we are right on this stuff. you have to have that faith in yourself, use discernment, use patience, prayer most helps.

professors, that might take an act of god, but you can get to the students. >> i have an example that i would like your opinion on if i should pursue further. >> sure. >> last fall quarter, i was in english 101 class, and i had an a the whole quarter until the last two weeks. we were assigned to write a persuasive paper, and knowing that all, i was the only conservative in my class, and i decided that i wanted to pick a big conservative topic so i chose to write on why say ray palin would make a good president, and apparently, that didn't set well with them. i knew that, but my teacher failed me. i had to retake the class. i went through a two month appeal process, and the english department there just tried to justify everything, and they

all, like, sat there and lied. i was wondering if i should, like, try to keep pursuing it or just let it go. >> keep doing it. you did the right thing. look, i mean, people die for their beliefs. you flunked a class. i know that's big and significant. i understand that, but you did the right thing. you don't know how many students in that class maybe learned something from your paper. you don't know how many of them said, you know, i think she's right. they would never tell you that because it's group think in college. it's group think. keep it up. you have to have -- the sermon is this, not all battles should be fought at all times. if it's time to fight, fight, and never give up. >> okay, thank you. >> all right. [applause] >> hey, young britains foundation. i take it that you think that it makes easy to have smaller states, but do you also believe

the converse if we role back the states it could be a virtue and how do the two fit together? >> you know,ic it's harder to role back a state and expect virtue to appear rather than have virtue appear and roll back the state. if people are not ready or ready for a sense of responsibility or virtue, they first say, bring back the state. you can't force people to be virtuous by taking their tax money or by throwing them out there saying, okay, it's your turn,ing not ours. that might happen in some cases, but the state is not going to say we're rolling back to make you more virtuous or teach you a lesson that you really want a bigger state because you'll be confused, your check doesn't come, and you'll say bring back government. it has to be virtue, walk the talk. you have to show people i'm the one helping the poor. i'm the one helping deal with the issue. i'm the one responsible in how i live to say this is what we need

more of and hope it catches. as it catches on, if you got 40 people out helping the poor in your town, they'll say why do we need the welfare office. the poor people says i get more help i do from you rather than the bureaucrat who gives a check. we lead by example. it's easier to start with virtue and roll back the state. i don't trust the state. no state, i think, has voluntarily reduced itself. oh, let's get smaller. they have a purpose for that and a reason for doing that. preach virtue, practice it, and show people how it works so much better. >> thank you. >> you bet. [applause] thank you, all. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, kirby. all right. we are breaking for this afternoon, but we will be back in, like, an hour and 20

minutes, i think, right before seven o'clock for tonight's banquet next door in the grand ballroom. see you then. remember, if you want information about young americas foundation, visit our website at www.yaf.org or call us, 1-800-usa-1776. [inaudible conversations] >> wiewfort hob mb frd -- we'll here more from the american young foundation. how politicians and their friends get rich off insider stock tips, land deals, and

cronnyism that would send the rest of us to prison. we have to be really clear about the that many ways that we own ourselves, and that we own our history, and that we make decisions that our history is phenomenal, vital, and special. the former president of bennet college writes and comments on politics, education, and african-american economic history, and this sunday, your questions, calls, e-mails, and tweets for the author of "surviving and thriving, 365 facts in black economic history."

"in-depth" on c-span2's booktv. on wednesday, several provisions of the affordable care act covering women went into effect. one of the provisions is companies have to cover breast exams, prenatal care, and birth control without co-pays. the health and human services secretary spoke about the new rules in the capitol. >> we got our team. everybody here? well, good morning, everybody. i first of all want to start by thanking the senator for organizing this announcement today and for inviting me to join these wonderful senate leaders and a consumer from ohio to talk about women's health.

the leaders i'm with today have been such strong advocates for women and their health for decades, and i'm pleased to join them. today, we're here to mark a new day for women's health in america. starting tomorrow, thanks to the new health care law, all insurance policies will be required # to cover new vital care that women need to stay healthy, and they'll have to cover the care without charging women anything out-of-pocket. now, as women, we're likely to be the health care decision makers in our families, keeping our children up-to-date on checkup, urging spouses to care for themselves, helping elderly parents stay on medication or find the extra money in the family budget to pay for health insurance, but too often, we put our own health last, and that's especially true when it comes to preventative care. the regular checkups and

screenings that are essential to be healthy, but easy to put off. what makes it worse is before the health care law, many insurers did not cover basic women's care. other health care plans charged such high co-payments that they discouraged many women from getting basic preventative services. as a result, surveys though that more than half of the women in this country delayed or avoided preventative care because of its cost, and that's simply not right, and it's not good for our country, but thanks to the health care law, it's about to change. thanks to the new law, new private plans in medicare already begun covering potentially life-staving tests and care for men and women like cholesterol screening and flu shots with no co-pay, and beginning tomorrow, all new insurance plans will be required to cover additional services and

tests for women with no out-of-pocket costs including domestic violence screenings, fda approved contraception, breast-feeding councilling and supplies, and a well-woman visit where she can sit and talk with her health care providers. according to a report released today by our department, approximately 47 women in america will soon be eligible to receive this vital care with no co-pay. now, no woman should have to choose between seeing a doctor and putting food on the table for her family, and now many women don't have to make that difficult choice any longer. it's important to know that soon women will see even more protection thanks to the new health care law. starting in 2014, it will be illegal for companies to deny summon coverage because they're a breast cancer survivor or pregnant or a victim of domestic violence, and it will also be

illegal, finally in america, to charge women more than men just because they are women. in other words, being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition in this country. now, for too long, insurance companies have stacked the deck against women forcing us to pay more for coverage that didn't meet our needs, and thanks to the affordable care act, a new day for women's health has timely arrived. now i'd like to turn over the podium to senator ma cull ski who is an incredible champion for women's health, but is the dean of women in congress. senator >> >> thank you very much. >> well done. >> good morning, everybody. what a happy day. tomorrow, august 1st, will be an opportunity for women who are in need of preventative health care

services will be able to take a giant step forward to have access to the care they need without the barriers of cost or discrimination. tomorrow, august 4th, put this down on your calendar, women will be able to have access to essential preventative services that will provide early detection and careening -- screening for those situations most at risk and also provide opportunities to care and services that they need as wives and mothers. this is called the women east preventative health care amendment. during the health care debate, we want to do two things. we wanted to save lives and save money. we knew that preventative health care was an essential corner stone to that early detection. early detection and screening

provides the kind of information where we know the problem before it spreads to a leal nature. one of the important tools we women have a mammograms, but in the midst of the health care debate, they wanted to take our mammograms away from us. well, hey, not while i'm here. [laughter] what did we do? we organized with senator harkin and senator dodd leading their committee, working with the good women and the men who supported us. we -- i was able to bring to the floor the preventative women's health care amendment. we suited up, we put on our lipstick, and we were able to pass this legislation, and what does it mean? it means that we will be able to have access to those early

detection and screening things for breast cancer, colin cancer, lung cancer, all of those dreaded "c words" that we're terrified of and when a woman gets a disease, it just doesn't affect her, but the entire family. we, in congress, didn't want to write the benefit. we wanted to turn to a learned society like the institute of med sip to say what -- medicine to say what were the essential services? that's why they came up with the annual checkup, the breast-feeding support, the domestic violence screening as well as access to contraception. what we now will be able to do is that the top killers of women will now no longer go undetected. the kind of support services that we need to be healthy, to be good mothers, and to be able to have our family life and be able to do it. we eliminate barriers to care,

the most important was cost because often women did not seek that because of the co-pays and deductible. the second was the very attitude of insurance companies that charged women more and we got less. we eliminated the barriers and benefits, and on august 1st, women all over america will be able to have access to care they had to fight for for so long. i'm so grateful we could pass the affordable care act, that we had the support of the leadership, that this was not only a woman's issue, but it was a family's issue. yes, we women often brought it to the attention when we had the support of fantastic men, and one of the great champons here has been senator tom harkin when he was one of the prime movers in the affordable health care act. he's one of the prime movers in

the whole concept of prevention and wellness to both save lives and save money, and he's been a great champion for we women proving the fact that men of quality never are shy about supporting women who speak equality. let me bring up our good friend and our champion, senator tom harkin. >> boy, is that tough to follow. [laughter] thank you, secretary sebelius, for your leadership in the department of health and human services, and we all teamed up together, senator kennedy asked each of us to head certain parts of the health care reform bill. we worked together very closely to put this all together, and while we worked very hard to put

together a strong preventative package that includes everyone because we wanted to change the sick care system to a health care system, one where people could get early checkups and prevent an ill pness from progressing. a lot of that went into effect a couple years ago under the preventative services task force recommendations, but that covered everyone. what we're talking about that goes into effect tomorrow are the recommendations of the institute of medicine that pertain particularly to women, and that was what barbara championed so hard and brought to the senate was this focus. this focus that because women, do i need to state the obvious? are different than men. certain health requirements for women are different than men, and so we asked the institute of medicine to come up with a list of preventative services that

ought to be includeed in the package. they did. starting tomorrow, 47 million women will now be able to get preventative services they could not get before at no cost, no co-pays, no deductibles. they will be able to go in and get a well-woman visit annually as a checkup. i know we focused a lot on breast cancer and other carps screenings, and i'll return to that in a second, but there's a lot of other things too. detecting things early like asthma, diabetes, or a whole host of other things that women need to have a well-woman visit every year. that will start tomorrow. 47 million american women, 519,000 in my state of iowa. when they get their plans renewed, they'll have preventative services available to them. we fought hard to include these.

i got a lot of applaud, but we focused like a laser on the issue on making sure that women had all the preventative services available, and it's, i guess if i had a regret is that it took us two years to get here, but better late than never, and so tomorrow is a new day. on a more personal note, i lost both my sisters to breast cancer, my only two sisters at a fairly young age. when my older sister, maryanne died and we went to the funeral, her younger sister, silva, was there, and she had no idea she also had breast cancer. within two years, she was dead also. they left young families. they lived in rural areas, small

towns. they didn't have any money. they didn't really have health care coverage. for them to go to get a checkup would have cost money, money that they could ill-afford at that time. they had a number of kids. as i said, they didn't have a lot of money. they didn't have health care benefits. how it would have been different if they could have had this available to them. early checkups. cheryl screen -- early screenings, but for both of them, it was way too late by the time they discovered it. for me, this has a personal poignant meaning to me, and i just hope that women in this country now will take advantage of this, and they will now go and get those annual screenings and get those checkups. early detection, early detection, we know works, and millions of lives can be saved,

and as senator said, families, families will not have to lose a parent or a sister because of breast cancer or cervical cancer, all the others. when i hear republicans say, and they still say they want to repeal this, and they want to take this away from women? i stand with senator mikulski, not as long as we're here. [laughter] >> thank you, senator harkin, for your extraordinary leadership and willingness to share such a personal and moving story to underscore the importance of today, and i thank senator mikulski for tireless and enthusiastic leadership in continuing to fight hard for this amendment which was adopted, and secretary sebelius for leading the nation in a

transformational moment for all of us. the goal of the affordable health care act is to help our nation to become healthy, more healthy, and in being more healthy, we can be a more prosperous, economically vital nation. it is a blessing when the citizens are healthy, and it's truly a blessing when the women of a nation are healthy and the mothers of a nation are healthy because as senator mikulski pointed out, women are the primary care geyser of a nation. the better the care givers are, the healthier the nation will be. it makes sense. it's a shame this was all illegal until today. with this legislation, with this government requirement, which is important, a partnership with insurance companies, women will be able to get the care they need to stay healthy. tom, your sisters, to raise

their children themselves. the cost of having mothers healthy, to be able to raise their children as opposed to transferring some of that burden to the society or the town or the community are enormous. for louisiana, the state that i represent, over 600,000 women tomorrow with private insurance, not women on medicare, not women op medicaid, which will benefit as well, but 600,000 women with private insurance will be able to access these services to keep themselves healthy and well, women that are working minimum wage jobs or women that show up at the highest levels of some of the largest companies in louisiana at the corporate level, and so this is truly an amazing day. it would not have happened without the senators' leadership. we are all grateful. let's keep our women and our mothers healthy. thank you, senator lautenberg.

>> thank you, senator, and we -- i'm pleased to be here with colleagues who had the guts to stand up and fight the battle that women deserve, and that is reasonably good health care, and led by barbara who always surprises us with her leadership, her dinism, her tenacity, and all of the things that resulted in where we stand on 24 health care bill right now. can you imagine what would have happened just february when one of our colleagues, in the senate, dthed to bring up -- decided to bring up an amendment that would strike the women's health care section of the reform bill? now, what would have happened is that the same time a woman came in there, and she said, you know what? i think we ought to stop

prostate screenings for men. what do you think would have happened in this place, tom? it might -- we might get a response to that. the fact of the matter is that there's a malegarchy trying to decide what women should be doing for themselves and for their families. well, now there's a chief hauncho as you know of the group named romney, and he's resolved to repeal health care the first day, to start repealing it the first day that he has office. well, we're saying too bad. you don't know barbara mikulski and her following, and we all salute when she walks in the room because she deserves our republic, affection, and our thanks. i have five daughters. five daughters and six granddaughters.

we'll continue to fight the fight led by barbara, led by secretary sebelius and other colleagues here. be ready. tell those guys on the other side tomorrow is a new dawn coming, and we're going to keep on shining a light on it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> first, let me tell you on behalf of the people of maryland that i have the mon hoer of representing to over 1 million women who benefit from today's announcement in my state. we're proud that we have sent to the united states senate one great leaders on gender equity issues in america. she has been a leader throughout her career on gender equity issues whether it's fairness with the led better act or preventative health care in the affordable care act. senator, we thank you on behalf

of a grateful nation, the progress we made to close the gap on fairness and equality in the health care system, and i want to thank secretary sebeliua, and i want to thank president obama for taking on the health care crisis in america and the passage of the affordable care act. our whole nation benefits from it. in fact, at long last, health care's a right, not a privilege, but it's particularly important for women because more women are uninsuredded, more women have been discriminated against in our health care system, and the provisions of the affordable care act help to close the gap and fairness in america on health care. secretary sebelius mentioned some already in effect, no limits on lifetime cap that affected women more than men, and by 2014, the annual cap is gone on the insurance policies. we talked about pre-existing conditions for children already

in effect, and women discriminated against are really the poster children for why we needed to eliminate pre-existing conditions. that ends in 2014. higher premiums charged to women because they are women. that will end. on august 1st, tomorrow, there are new provisions that take effect. i'll highlight the premium rebate. insurance companies have to give value to the premium dollar. that takes effect on august 1st. once again, women are going to benefit from that provision, but i am particularly proud of the preventative health services you've heard about. we -- senator mikulski was responsible for the amendment put in law. in fact, the institute of medicine did a study as to what preventative services are needed for women, and it's their report and recommendation that we're now implementing tomorrow that will give women the preventative

health care services they need without co-payment. this is an important day as we continue to make progress in america to provide quality, affordable health care to all the people of the nation, and i'm proud to be on this team, and with that, i'll introduce senator shaheen. >> thank you. tomorrow, august 1st, is a great day for women and families in this country because tomorrow the provisions of the affordable care act that are so important to women go into effect, and i want to thank senator mikulski, harkin, and all my colleagues here for the work they put in in making the affordable care act and these provisions the law. the data is very clear. these provisions, as senator harkin said so elegantly, will save lives. now, opponents may not want to

pay for those, but the reality is that because these provisions are going to go into effect tomorrow, that women are better off, their families are better off, and looking at the overlying cost of health care in the system, we'll be more cost effective with the provisions so it is a great day for women and families. >> i'm proud to follow senator shaheen and stand today with the giants in the senate, and i agree with everything said except, i think, frank lautenberg used the word "surprised" by the tenacity of senator mikulski, and someone who i have come to admire, i'm not surprised, but admiring, and there's two giants who are not with us today who stood strong

and tall, senator kennedy and dodd, and i'm honored to follow senator dodd as the senator from connecticut whose citizens, 270,000 of them, will benefit tomorrow. they will see 24 new day and new dawn, and that's a great day for america because it combines equality and quality. it saves lives, and it also saves dollars and may be impush yows to the life saving effects of this measure. let's talk about dollars, prevention and detection save resources and expenses and they will drive down costs as we must do in our health care delivery system. we're talking here about diabetes screening, cancer screening, basic health screenings that means protecting and stopping disease before its

cost spiral astrono , ma'amically out of -- as no , -- out of control. when a mom and sister is sick, the entire family suffers. it is a great day for our health care deliverly system and i think it is a historic day for meek -- america because we are saying here today we will not retreat. we will not repeal. we will not reject a step in the right direction showing washington can get things done. we can break this gridlock. we can move forward. i want to thank my colleagues for their great leadership. i'll introduce someone who's been a champion of health care, senator brown. >> thank you, senator blumn

blumnenthal. there's been so many fighting here, and no one's done it better or longer than barbara, and i was in columbus who days ago with someone who stepped up, and because of that fight, women of the country, especially lower income are making more money than otherwise and earning what they ought to earn because of her efforts, and i'm introducing in a moment another hero in the fight for gender equity and fight for health care for women and about a year and a half ago, i was in toe toledo, and we announced as people across the country announced the beginning of -- that began efforts in medicare of preventative starting in early 2011. some 6 00,000 senior women in

ohio had preventative services like mammograms, various kinds of physicals at no co pay or deductible. that was the beginning of this. tomorrow, 1.8 million women in my state have access to these services. notable among them and the story you hear from many is not a typical story. a typical story of someone with the courage she's shown perhaps, but a story that's all too common. he's the mother of four and -- she says four kids and grandmother of 12. she's from holland. she has a story to tell, and she really, with all the numbers we cite of 1 million in maryland, 1.8 million in ohio, hundreds of thousands of other states, but she's the reason we make the fight. i remember being in the health committee with tom harkin as we wrote preventative elements in this bill and how important they were and the fights those two

made to make it the right thing, and it's because of people like ann who we know are out there living lives every day caring so much about the community, and she's willing, with all of her illnesses over the past, she's willing to step up and fight in an ongoing well, activist in toledo, here, and i'm proud. ann? >> thank you, glad to be here. thank you senator brown. it's a pleasure to be here. it is an honor. listening to all of everybody speak, three minutes is kind of a tough thing to stay with when you are clinging for human life here, but that's what i'm doing. pardon me? >> [inaudible] >> okay. i am a three time survivor of cancer. you live with cancer every day of your life. it doesn't go away. i have been fortunate and blessed. my first bout with cancer was 30 years ago when i was diagnosed with breast cancer, and i had

insurance, thankfully. i also had checked myself for 18 years because when i was 18 years old, they found a lump, and i'm lucky i had a doctor that said do self-examinations and watch out and pay attention to your body. i did. i found a lover -- i found a lump at 36 years old. i had insurance there. i had double surge and repair work done because of the surgery, and then it all worked out great, and then in -- that was in 1982. in the year 2000, i was diagnosed with colin cancer. i had no signs at all until i found blood. because i paid attention to the body, i realized this shouldn't be. i called the doctor right away, and they did a test on me, and there was a large tumor that they felt, and i have seven doctors' opinions and felt it was a 10-year growth of that

tumor. now, i was 55 years old at that time 11 years ago. had i had a colon os pi at 50, it might not have happened. thankfully, i had good insurance at that time because i ended up at washington, d.c. down here at a hospital for a very special procedure that a doctor has taught and did all over the world, and i was fortunate enough to be able to get into him to have the tumor removed, but when it came back malignant, then i had more surgery in columbus, ohio because nobody wanted to work on me in toledo. the expertise was not there at that point in time. now, we come forward into the yeah 2000 rediagnosed with breast cancer. i called the insurance company right away because the insurance i timely got, denied insurance after my employer asked me, and right after my surgery, an

employer asked me to go off the insurance because i was costing everybody too much in the company. the figure he gave me, and i later found out, it cost the company, not the individuals. there was several individuals in the company carrying a couple jobs, and i didn't want them to pay extra because of me. i said, of course, i would check out for other insurance, and i had no idea what i was walking into. i was refused by several insurance companies. i finally ended up at what they call open enrollment. my cheapest, until i ended up with what i did, was $1650 a month. i finally ended up with insurance policy at $385, but on total life exclusion for cearntion and respiratory. the respiratory was through the an these tick. i got copd from the surgeries. don't take medicines for it, but i'm denied. in 2010 when this happened, when i got re-diagnosed, i called the insurance company saying are you

covering me? they said, well, probably not. if it's negative, you don't meet the deductible. i'm not a sick person. i take good care of myself, but i do get cancer. i don't know why. it came back positive because i had cancer and it was a pre-existing condition, they were not going to cover me. i canceled then and there because i was paying money and not getting anything back. luckily, i would approve forward bccp program in ohio, a breast and cervical service program. i was fortunate because the bill for the one-day surgery, in and out, was about $40,000. i'm single. that would have really put me back. i was very fortunate to have that, and i'm very glad they took over. i still had about $8,000-$10,000 on my own, but that was a sure cry difference from $40,000. >> [inaudible] >> pardon me? >> [inaudible] >> there you go. to get to that, i'm a voice here representing not just thousands,

but millions of people, women and men, but being a woman, i can't even tell you how much we appreciate what you were doing and how much the impact is going to be on women. most of the people that i know around me are women fighting cancer. i have a friend fighting bone cancer for six years which is a recurrence from breast cancer many years ago. she can't move. she can hardly get in and out of her car. she can't go in the backyard and sit in the sun because of medication, but it's hard to get out of bed. that's a project in the morning. she could be around for another six to ten to twenty years because until bone cancer hits your organs, you can live a long time. i'll tell you it's painful. to live in a world of pain, agony, and fear, and when you hear the words "you got cancer," it's a parollizing moment. once you're past the moment, you have to decide what to do. that decision in itself is gigantic. until you make that decision,

you're in a very black hole, and then you have to move forward and do what you're going to do and make up the mind that you're going to get better, but the screenings and the testing and the learning about your body and being educated is so very important because most of these cancer can be avoided. i know that i would not have had colin carps if i had a test before the time i did. it could have been avoided. breast cancer could have been worse if i didn't notice it in an early stage. i've been fortunate. there's millions out there not as fortunate. i'm just going to throw one thing out. if you look at -- i'm talking about cancer parties now alone, but if you take 9/11, and you take a 9/11 every other day of the year, then you have the same amount of people that are dying from cancer in our country. 9/11. it was horrific. it was every expletive you could think of. these are people that are dying day by day and are living with

pain and fear and devastation, financial devastation. some losing their families. i do have four kids, and i have 12 kidlets, an i look at them, and i don't want them to go through the same thing i went through or that i see my friends. go through. i lost my brother three months ago, and my sister was just diagnosed three months ago with mel melanoma internally. it's tough. it's tough. thank you for putting this in effect. i pour bon you strong voices that are not putting human life as a top priority. i don't understand how they can't, but since they are not, thank you, take the voices in strong. i would like to introduce marsha greenberg, founder and co-president of the national women's center.

[applause] >> before marsha and judy come up, i just wanted to thank them and all of the advocates because i think, and what you heard in anne's testimony, she's part working with the american cancer society, the cancer action network, the national women's law center, judy and the national partnership for women and families. we couldn't have done it without each other, and we will all were in it together. i want to thank the advocates because it's their voice that really brought this to the floor. many nice things were said about me today, but, really, you have to talk about the people in the trenches every day, the people who are affected, the people who give voice to the law, to the statistics, and so on. i want to publicly thank them because we could never have done this without their incredible, incredible homework, and, anne,

such a compelling personal narrative shows why we'll never let them repeal or try to repeal this bilk and so we'll fight it, and now one of the great warriors, marsha. >> thank you so much, ?afort mikulski, all the champions for women's health here in this extraordinarily exciting day, and, anne, your story is such an amazing reminding that we're not talking about statistics. we are talking about people. we are talking about the most heart-wrenching of health circumstances that can be avoided and certainly amereuated with access to the health care system, with decent health insurance for every american in this country. that is what the affordable care act promises.

.. the 40th anniversary this year the national women's law center. at step by step by step, effort i have for test taken this long and longer to reach a day when women's health is not an aftehought, when it isn't an add-on, when we are trying one

service at a time to get included. when the model can include an health care can women as well as men. and that is really what is so fundamentally thrilling about what we are on the brink of experience being. because of this affordable care act and the preventive health care amendment that senator macko ski lead towards passage, women are not only not a preexisting condition, but we have had experts identifying from the get-go. what is it that makes liminality? what are the services that we may need? they need to be included. they need to be a part of what is available in this country,

not to charity, not through happenstance, but because the law incorporates women's health as one of its fundamental purposes. the national women's law center a number of years ago did ebert poured of the individual market and anne told her to move away how it was to be on your own and have to go buy health insurance. and what we found was that women who have to buy insurance for not only cherish routinely more than men as much as 85% more than men, but also that was excluding maternity coverage, excluding contraception. now, we will face and meet today

when women are not charged more than men and their health care needs are covered. whether it is counseling services as domestic violence survivors, whether it is the kind of testing in to try to detect gestational diabetes, whether it is the availability of all forms of fda approves contraception so that we may no longer have to avoid because the cost, the safest and most of the means of contraception for them. whether it means a well man women surveys that follow-up is available for women. these kinds of services are life-saving. they are recognition of the fact

that women do have to take care of their health and often are, because of the costs come in the first ones to put their health care last as they take care of others. so as each new plan turns over, and women across this country and their families can really let out a sigh of relief that they would get access to this coverage once and for all, we have a lot to be thankful for, but we know it didn't come out with site and leadership and determination and we have to continue all of this effort to just keep the options in place. i know there's going to be a lot of reading and following up

today and tomorrow all of the important aspects of what this new day will bring and what it promises over time. so it is important to say stay involved and engaged in stay in the fight so that we continue this progress and make sure that it turns into a reality for every man, everyone then, every child in this country. thank you. i forgot to introduce a dear colleague and a dear friend, judith lichtman from the national partnership for women and families. >> thank you, marcia. and thank you, senator mikulski and of course secretary sebelius and all the wonderful champions on behalf of the affordable care act. and most especially, women's

health. this law is the greatest advance for women's health in a generation. and tomorrow, august 1st, 1 of his promises becomes a reality as you've heard from millions of women who will be healthier as a result. beginning august 1st, the affordable care act will ensure that new insurance plans cover preventive health care without cost sharing and with no co-pay that for too long have put these critical services out of reach for so many women like anne. this is one of the most tangible benefits from reform. thanks to the affordable care act, no longer what women go without birth control because they can't afford the co-pay. no longer what women go without hiv and transmitted disease testing they urgently need.

no longer will cost prevent pregnant women from being tested for gestational diabetes. no longer will cost prevent new mothers from getting the supplies they need to breast-feed there and since and give them a healthier start in life. no longer will teens and adults at risk the domestic violence go without potentially life-saving screening and counseling. it is about time. the affordable care act covers annual exams, mammograms at no cost. tomorrow, cost cease to be a deterrent to the preventive care that millions of women need pension reform will outlaw gender discrimination and pricing at long last. as more benefits rollout, we

should all focus on implementing the and ensuring that all women and all americans can access these critical services. to those who try to argue that repealing reform is right for this country and for our families, i say that you can't type fast enough. you can't sell enough confusion or you can't see the women of america and the men who care about them. no longer. better care for pregnant and nursing them based on the hiv, transmitted infections and domestic violence and no-cost access to birth control another preventive services will make women and our families and our country healthier. starting tomorrow, we have the affordable care act to thank for

that. >> senator mikulski had to go to the floor it has a term reserved this morning on the floor to speak about this and she is a leader, so she asked me to try to fill in any questions. >> we have a house bill to ban abortions in the district of columbia. what are your reactions i'm not xmp, given the chambers for china to party for women's health issues and has been something that's resolved after the election? >> a long time ago, i guess not that long ago, chaired the committee and the district of columbia. i said then, believed then and i believed every sense of the congress of the united states should not interfere in the government of the district of columbia. regardless of banning abortions

after 26 weeks or whatever that was. [inaudible] jeter grounded opened an injunction and colorado's stop being a small business owner. do you believe that the federal government has done more right to afford half of small business to act in the state? >> what i do believe is the obama administration carved out a very sensible sort of middle ground exception to this in which churches, religious organizations, certainly are exempted from this, but for-profit businesses that cover

a broad for radio people, they don't have to pay and if they don't want to for the individual, but they do have to pay into the health care benefit to the insurance companies whether or not they want to carry this as a division. so i think the exception that the obama administration came up with this sensible. i think we also have to keep in mind that a lot of times we talk about birth control is contraception, many times for many young women of child rearing age, it is not just to prevent a birth or prevent a pregnancy. there are many women who take earth control pills went shopping because they have terrible menstrual camps once a month here at some of them almost incapacitated, can't work. i know of young women myself

because of this aren't able to work and be productive and is prescribed by their doctor. rb now being told that a woman has to take that prescription from a doctor and show it to her employer? or show it to her insurance company about what the diagnosis is? i wouldn't ask anyone to do that. i wouldn't ask any woman to do that. so i think that we have to move ahead on this. i don't know what the outcome of this case is going to be. i know it's a preliminary injunction while it's decided. i don't know all the facts in the case. i just don't, but i do believe that we have carved out the obama administration viable churches. anybody have anything to add to that?

>> well, i will just say briefly that it is very much in the beginning preliminary injunction stage and i think if you look at any of the legal price with this particular provision in the legal bounds as well as being sensible of senator harkin said. and of course in this particular case, a company that is, i believe, installs heating and air conditioning and the light, that is why it the company has, ironically enough, of course for those who have been to work for this company, who never thought they were working for interreligious company and its not a religious organization at all, they are pain and whatever their fair share of insurance is

and so, women need to be able to get access to needed health care, just like men can. of course one of the things we have to make sure a is that this does respect women's health needs and women's own religious principles and beliefs, too. so when the balance, legal and constitutional precedents take all of this into account and that's why we are quite confident as this case and others move forward that the provisions will be upheld. >> over the course of the last couple years, studies have come out regarding the health healthe debate the recorded their breast cancer screening, mammograms, these kind of things have become excessive. they have created emotional concerns for people because they were initially positive and

negative. it seems as if this was a response to some of the discussion at the prescreening tests are crucial and necessary. the problem also miss a lot of the studies are coming out as an increasing insurance rate. there has to be fundamental regulation on insurance. i think the debate on single-payer and the public options has to be be taken under this consideration annex possibly because the gc is deregulated financial industries like resolved with the wall street situation. we need fundamental regulation like we need us to go. so maybe you can take up -- let's just take another question. >> no, the statement on glass-steagall is important. [inaudible] the question i'm going to ask is what are we going to do about private insurance companies to mandate them and keep prices low? if you say we need to have real health care for people, how do

you provide affordable health insurance? competition simply doesn't do the job. >> on the exchanges that will. but the exchange of more transparency with people being able to see was offered on the exchanges and what different companies are offering, quite frankly what happened in 2014 as american people get what we have in congress. every year we have open season and i think we get 15 or 20 different plans that can pick and choose from. i know i've changed my plan from when i was here just my wife and i am only kids who changed it when our kids got older we changed it and when her kids left we changed again. it's formed to whatever family situation was. most people haven't had that option, but now they will in 2014. we hope that will be as strong as anything but what we're talking about here in terms of moving to more preventative

care, early detection is going to do more -- as they say, then the cost curve to anything we've ever done. this is part of the women's health care -- preventative health care is a big part of that. [inaudible conversations] >> we heard earlier from the inter-american foundation and later lifetimes stand to a 7:45 a.m. eastern time at peter schweitzer, author of throw them all out.

next, cato university director tom palmer attacks that origins of the state system at the cato institute's annual conference on liberty in washington d.c. he discussed history of government beginning of the predatory state to our current system. his remarks are part of what was a daylong forum on economic growth in the foundations of liberty. this is about an hour and a half. >> okay, well, this morning we are starting with another presentation. before we get started and going to make a couple quick announcements. you'll notice there are books for sale outside.

also, take them, read them, enjoy them, share them with your friends. everything is available also online, www.cato.org. there's a huge amount of research material you can put to good use. i'd also like to mention when we go to discussion if you're at the mike, please make sure you are pretty close to it because it is hard to hear if you're holding it just a little way from yourself. they're very sensitive to the range. now, the presentation of going to make us a bit different from steve's. it is complementary rather than being economic and numbers, this is primarily sociology. i'm going to look at origins of the state and government historically. but before that, i want to make a little advertisement because i was happy this morning i got an e-mail from one of our libertarian colleagues in tehran and iran and that is the book, the morality of capitalism and

anti-iranian bookshop in tehran, translation appeared is doing quite well and then this morning reviews into newspapers. so i was pretty happy about that. [applause] and that's also a project that one of our colleagues here raised. i'm sorry from iran is is active in promoting libertarianism in the persian speaking world. that's a big of a quick announcement. and now back to our feature presentation to look at the origins of the state and the government. let's start out with something that is really a remarkable feature of contemporary discourse. there's a lot of people who believe the state is responsible for everything. so let me give you an example

here. professor cass feinstein who is not only professor at loyola university chicago, the white house office of regulatory affairs, government has abdicated everything people are. if people have a great deal of money is because the government furnishes a system in which they are entitled to have been keep that money. that's the academic formulation. we had a more popular one recently, which is shared here. >> a deep and successful, you didn't get that on your own. he didn't get that nine-year run. i'm always struck by people who think well, it must be because i was just so smart. there's a lot of smart people out there. it must be because i worked harder than everybody else. let me tell you something. there's a whole bunch of hard-working people out there. [applause] if you are successful, somebody along the line gave you some

help. there is a great teacher somewhere in your life. somebody help to create this unbelievable american system that we have that allowed you to thrive. somebody must've been those indigenous beard if you do business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen. the internet didn't get invented on its own. >> that was al gore as they know. he completed that. [laughter] [applause] if you've got a business, you didn't build that. somebody else made that happen. i would like to introduce at some point to my nephew and my niece in law who have been working 65 and 70 hour weeks letting someone else build their business in manatee springs, colorado and putting an enormous amount of their own sweat equity

business that obama is building. to be fair looking in context that is preceded by someone invested in roads and bridges. so let's be fair. you may be seeing the point is you didn't build those roads and bridges. you just pay the taxes with which they were built because of the business days and the work in the enterprise and the labor in your life. so the best interpretation of what the president offered us is that he doesn't understand the first thing about marginal contributions to output. name of the question is one additional hour of labor, one additional dollar, one additional acre of land. he doesn't understand how the world works and the margin we should be focused on. so that's just a little bit of

contemporary discourse. and look at this presumption that all the surplus is attributable to the state and the hidden assumption that therefore the state is entitled to a period after all it's responsible for it and the consequences they are entitled to it, to have no claim whatsoever on anything that quote, unquote you have produced because you didn't do it. have you in fact been born in a very, very poor country, you probably would be poor. that's certainly true. steve lanford made that point very clear. if any of us had been born in a desperately impoverished country and not had an education and not had health care, not had the opportunity living under some kind of tyrannical dictatorship, we wouldn't be as prosperous as we are. that is certainly true. it doesn't follow from that the additional efforts to make within the context of your

society somehow don't matter, that they don't count. but there's another deep philosophical problem here and that is the argument that all the surplus is attributable to the state can't be right because that is surplus equipment had a state in the first place. the very beeped beginning, the foundation is a fundamental claim. the state apparatus can eurocrats, warriors, soldiers and so one requires is surplus to be about to sustain them. the people systematically argue all surplus is attributable to this day. that cannot be true. there had to been a surplus before there could've been a state. anthony duchamp makes that point very well in his work and i recommend the short essay he wrote. it's very clever. the essay is called your dog owns your house. the argument being because your dog is your guard dog, protects

you come without that someone could instill in your house and the consequences naturally your dog is legitimate and proper owner of your house because your dog contribute protection services to. let's look though at sociological level. what is at stake? here's the canonical definition, one of the greatest sociologist in the last 200 years. he defined the state is that human community which successfully lays claim to the monopoly of legitimate physical violence within a certain territory. so we can look at that and point out that there are groups that make claim to monopoly of violence, but unsuccessfully. mafia groups, jennings, neighborhood gangs and so on, but also they successfully laid claim to, but also in terms of legitimate exercise of power,

that there is some reason they should have that authority and others should not. and finally, this territory be in another defining characteristic of the state. the contemporary state are territorially bound. this was not sure of a variety of political forms of organization in the past periods of the modern territorial state we cannot do that also the contemporary state almost all places of the world is a nationstate. that is to say a state in which the territory is the natural homeland of the nation. this is again a modern form of the state that was not found in a previous formation. let's go back to this question is surplus and ask first, why do people above? in various sociologist address this question and a very famous one in a magazine published in

france in the early years of the 19th century access to the world only two great parties. that is those who prefer to live from the produce of their vapor or property that of those who prefer to live on the labor or property of others. or we could put in italy, makers and takers. people who believe in producing and those people who believe in appropriating the wealth of others. or rather, ask others to do so. hans oppenheim or come another great sociology and what called the conflicts go sociology and a wonderful short book called the state distinguished the economic means and political means. there are two fundamentally opposed means, whereby man requires sustenance is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. there are work and robbery.

but his own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. and they consider the state to be the organization of the political means to the attainment of wealth. now there are others who also look at this question historically and its airport in augustana in pr week on a french historian from the early 19th century who led to the formation of european states. the most interesting book called the conquest of england tracing the english state or burner status since he knew to original act of conquest from 1066 as the foundation of the state system of britain. he also pioneered something i will talk about in the next lecture, which is the formation of civil society, a rather parallel activity in the formation of the so-called communes of europe, the cities,

the merchant guilds and self-governing municipalities of europe. and he considered that to be the foundation of civil society, of civilization a few well, and does modern freedom. one of the things he did was to go and collect all of the charters he could gather up these european cities. these are social contracts, constitutions. no one had paid any attention hundreds of years and he went and gathered these unpublished volumes of them is the real foundations of the origins of civil society. so let's look at what economic means have to perceive the political means, kind of surplus available for confiscation before you can develop a state. you don't find states among hunter gatherers that don't generate enough of a surplus to be able to confiscate.

similarly among a very primitive agriculturalists you don't get much of the state formation. what you need is settled agricultural production among persons who can generate sufficient wealth. and they typically are conquered by nomads. that is to say people who hurt animals. the experience of other state systems of the contemporary world really traced back to those states that sounded as somatic people selected out of central asia, typically people with horses who are able to conquer others. these were nomads, people who heard cattle and then centura agriculturalists. this is a deep foundation of the political system that we experience today. and indeed, there is a memory of those old conflict preserved in genesis four in the old

testament about how able was the keeper of sheep, that came with a tiller of the ground. of course we know two brothers come to. one kills the other. this is an echo of the ancient conflict between people who were chillers of the ground to reduce the surplus as a nomadic people, and the keeper of sheep who conquered them and are able to then exploit them or extract surpluses from them. this experience of the development of empires of nomads over cultivators we see in the middle east and mesopotamia a depiction of a site of a settled agriculturalists, the stone site for harvesting grain and the earliest forms of conquest by people with horses is the use of the word cheerier. when the war chariot is first

developed to see the first emergence of large empires and state formation. it's essentially a peasants cart hitched to the back of a horse, but then developed in such a way that it can maneuver and from that platform events or javelin or shoot an arrow and get away. it gives them a tremendous advantage over people who don't have access tauruses and therefore are not able to fire and flee rapidly. the development of the mounted soldier or night. and which disturb roe allowed them to then fight from directly on horseback to this greatly improve their mobility and their ability to conquer sedentary people. so you see waves and waves of nomadic people coming out of central asia, concreted people of those previously who were the conquerors from the previous

wave of appropriators a few well. so the middle east had a tremendously enormous role in the development of political institutions in the development of political institutions in the development of political institutions establishes the great empire. many, many things comerom the middle east. i should point out among them are a establishes the great empire. many, many things come from the middle east. i should point out among them are a domesticated house cats are descendents of middle eastern cat. this was recently documented. these are descendents of the middle eastern cat. if teams to be that cats -- i think there may be some cat owners here, successfully domesticated humans here first in the middle east and what happened was when you had grain production income you have large amounts of grain. what you get when you have large amounts of grain? mice. and what are very attractive?

manx. and those are adventurous enough to come and live among the ugly hairless means that all of the koran, which is to say that mice were able to successfully domesticated human beings can bend us to there well. so in effect, what you see in this context of state formation is a transformation from what mr. olson called roving bandits to stationary bandits. that's a very, very important phase of the development of human political associations. as you put it in the plastic and possibly best book, as the leader of a roving band again who finds only slim pickings are strong enough to take hold of a given territory and to keep other bandits out and become a monopoly is crime in that area to become a stationary bandit.

that sounds really terrible and indeed it is a predatory institution. but in some one is it's in advance to be plundered and round. if they need roving, burned that they can't take and then leave and then come back next year. this is terrible. and in some sense, its advanced respect about the plunder when the thunder says we will set a bound and plunder a little bit all year long. the consequences they don't destroy everything. you don't have to fight for them constantly. so paradoxically this is in some ways an advance from the kids even of the plunder. but we should not forget fundamentally what is going on this extraction of surplus is from people who produce it. there's a very interesting book that came out recently by an

anthropologist in the sociologist, james c. scott from yale university. i love this book. i learned so much from it. it's called the art of not being governed and it's about those regions of the world that have not been successfully conquered. although the acclaimed they are not subdued by states. when he talks about the incentive of the state of its rulers. some very simplistic economic models have argued that they want to maximize -- well, there is a competition among states, those who match the most domestic roddick somehow rewarded. scott says that's not the right way to think about it. it's the state accessible product that the rulers have an incentive to maximize. the ruler maximizes the state accessible product at the expense of the overall wealth of

the round and is subject. the state accessible product had to be easy to identify, monitor and a memory. in short, accessible as well as close in a geographically. one of the things scott points out is the way in which power flows across the geography. he says there is the friction of power. it doesn't go uphill very well. so when various ways of conkers moved through, they tend to conquer all of the valleys and lower areas and those who escape move up into the less desirable islands. and you cannot do history of its conquest by looking looking at the sedimentation of ethnicities, for example. support the mountainous places of the world and caucuses as an example, just a small country of georgia who like to visit us

tomorrow by the way. the little country of georgia, 13 languages are spoken there on a daily basis. each one having been pushed into its own little region in the mountains for a variable to be saved from the conkers is but then one way after another. he points out people in that situation turn out to be very hard to conquer because they are the survivors come at the unconquered ones and they have developed religious institutions , social institutions, legal institutions, former agriculture's that are very hard to take over. and makes them resistant to that. i pointed out to people, they should've read this book before the united states occupied afghanistan. because those people take in the country a whole have never been subject to subjugation by foreign powers. not the persians, not alexander

the great, not the mogul empire, not the british empire, not the russian empire or soviet empire, probably not nato and the united states either because those people have ways of life that make them very, very difficult to control. it seems to be something of political decision-makers cannot understand. take for example the sociology of agriculture, systematically state leaders suppress the growth of tubers such as the potatoes and the one in favor paddy rice cultivation or grain cultivation. and that's a little bit puzzling. but what political leaders care so much about suppressing the growth is the potatoes and forcing people instead into rice cultivation? and what scott points out is you can't tax the potatoes very effectively. it's a good source of nutrition

and you harvest it when you. otherwise it's just in the ground, still growing. the rice cultivation has to be harvested at the same time from which means you have large concentrations of human beings to do that too are available to be drafted into the army and also means when you do that, the local ruler are there to get their share. but other kinds of agriculture may be very difficult to them to plunder and get their share. it's a systematic influence of the political system on a whole range of different kinds of human behavior. now we have an actual well documented case study, the establishment of the norman state in the northern france, normandy, which they had these to the establishment of the state of england and our government is traceable and the lineage for this. it's a very interesting case in the year 911 a viking pirate by

the name of her of kos becomes duke grow though period he had been a pirate. he's participated in the siege of paris, was exceptionally good at looting. they bought him off, bribed him, if you just stop looting us all the time. but there's a problem. when you do that, they say now i have the gold. i won't bore you. and the deal that was finally offered was to, why don't you just settle down and lose to us all year round a little bit. you'll get more. and it won't be as costly to us. and that is the establishment of the two key of normandy. very well documented historical case of establishment of a particular predatory state. subsequent to that in 1066, the

normans, the northmen conquer england to come over with their nights, the conkers to his admirers is able to defeat the english army and established their state and england. a number of interesting things come from this as well. predatory state focuses on extraction of revenue from the population and also the english language as well. english as you may know i'm told right in close don't have any way to verify this personally has the largest national vocabulary of any language in the world. any language can invent new words. in terms of just normal national vocabulary, english has the largest in a relatively simple grammar. some of your english is your second or third or fourth language. you know how difficult it was to

master english language. i run, you run, we run, they ran, she runs in compared to other easy languages with the 17 cases. what happens is the two languages and effect are merged into one. if you listen carefully to the english language, you can hear the violence at its origin, and.com buys. the normans knew then and they move into the big houses if you will, the castles. you have a norman french-speaking elite. and the peasants are still speaking anglo-saxon. so think about the english language with regard to the food. if it's on your plate, as french. the elegant fancy people, the french word. when it's outside in the

barnyard making noise that is, let's take a simple example. imagine our to invite you to dinner. as they please come to dinner. we shall be serving swine. would you like another slice of cake? or perhaps a slice of cow as the thought is rather repulsive and shocking. instead, it is pork on your plate. it is a pic when it's outside pier but it's on your fancy china, it poured just desserts french. and similarly as the fun we have done the same to china. cow when it's outside being tended by cowherd or anglo-saxons. if you listen carefully, you can hear the distant echoes of conquest that established the modern english state. now let's look at characteristic features of modern states that are defining features of state

power. at the first one is a monopolization of law. they claim to have a monopoly that we the sovereign power determine what is law. we talk a little bit about that because in reality is the gopac disk, very rarely do they succeed an exercise in a monopoly. there's a great deal of law all around it. they insist on replacing customary law was imposed law with legislative seizures. they make the claim to sovereignty. we'll talk a bit more about what that means. a very important term of political thought. and also, the creation of an underlying nation. the myth that somehow the nation build the state. the reality systematically everyplace in the world is the state builds the nation. it actually goes the other way.

you take the french nation at the time of the french revolution that estimated only about half of the population spoke the french language. they spoke celtic languages or other romance languages or germanic languages and so on. it was the french state that creates the french nation. it's the german state that creates the german nation out of all the multitude of mutually and comprehensive dialects spoken in germany, high german a few well, a german state create the german nation contrary to the typical myth about this. and also in the imposition of systems of social control. uniform weights and measures, compulsory schooling, passports and so on. mds have really permeated our consciousness as modern person's spirit of the a simple example

on the question of passports. you now cannot travel around the world without a document issued by the state. you can no longer travel around the united states that a state issued document. this is the development of the united states of america. over thousands and thousands of years, people went where they wanted without documents issued by the state. how is that possible? i have in my wall advertising for an old german magazine from the 1920s a lovely engraving of a couple of compartments in the german border official german, french, english, italian, your passport please. this is how wonderful passports are because they give you the freedom of the world. of course that the opposite.

they restrict your freedom. they're not allowed to travel without the permission of the state. and this mentality people have been accuse me the freedom to travel, not understanding the system of passport restriction of freedom to travel. i gave a lecture some years ago to a group of students and after making a presentation on classic libertarian ideas, one young woman graced her hand and she had that look, which i know very well as the creature about the parks. figures fight back against her head. she was ready for me. and she adds, do you think the government should issue birth certificates? i never thought about that honestly. well, i never thought about whether birth certificate should be a government function.

most wishes by church registries , synagogues, mosques and so on. i don't see any reason to so i'm going to say no. then the eyes narrowed, you're a and back and she said how would you know who you are? [laughter] it was remarkable. she could not conceive of having a personal identity without a government document. somehow her personal identity was so confident in the state that she couldn't have one if you didn't have the her certificate. i informed her i don't have deeper certificate in a really don't have any doubt about who i am. before her, she's so internalized that mentality that she could not imagine. this has happened to modern consciousness that we are so saturated with the state that it's very difficult to imagine

life without it. let's look for a moment at the theory of sovereignty that characterizes the modern state. the sham by dan was a very, very influential political theorists. and in the late 16th century, he broke the six books of their republic and focused on the idea of sovereignty, she defined as the most absolute and perpetual power over citizens and public, without which was absolute, indivisible and perpetual pier but with interesting news he contrasted that with the fading remnant of another idea of social order, which was customary law and he dismissed it. acquire the course little by little by the common sense of

ball for most under many years. the law suddenly gets its strength from one person with the power of commanding oil. that sounds like an advertisement for custom. he thought is why custom should be dead a lot is then positioned it as understanding of authority by enforcement from above, hierarchically opposed in society was a defining characteristic of law and in his you could only emerge from a power that is absolute, uncontrollable, unconditioned or we can say above the law. boris customary law was little by little and requires power to the consent, the convention,

there's general agreement of parties to agreements. he thought that inadequate for law. thomas hobbes somewhat better-known argued also that the sovereign power is absolute and indivisible. they were not particularly have plagued the federal system like the united states of america said this is not a proper state because the sovereignty is divided. the different branches of government in between the federal government and state authority. but for hobbes, state and sovereign power is absolute. no conditions of this authority or another way of formulating that. and you troopers own conditions, which is to say there are no externally imposed conditions on the sovereign power. this is known as absolute as them. so we see this articulated also by political figures, notably by

abu at the, same statement, french odd i am the state. there is a reason why he would know i am the sun king. it wasn't because of his glory as king. he wasn't the surfer king. it was because of the copernican theory of the universe emerging at the time the sun was the center of the universe. everything revolved around the sun. it gave order, but in the nation, warmth to the world. he was arguing that was the role he plays in human affairs as well, the source of all order and without him, without the sovereign power there would be nothing. so consequently, sovereign is identified as the source of love and therefore it is above the law. i was given voice also by another political figure, king james the sixth and first come

the king james the sixth of scotland, king james the first of england, who in on juries for stuart line in english politics, english monarchy. and he wrote about before becoming king of england, the true love monarchies in which he argues that king is above the law. it's a very important principle. the king is above the law. the system process of a whole series of activities in britain when the stewards finally are put in their place subject to sovereign power itself to some kind of rule of law. that lawyers distinguish between two kinds of sovereignty. external sovereignty and internal sovereignty. those are useful distinctions. external sovereignty may in fact have a very positive role of international state system by diminishing armed conflicts among states.

that is to say the fundamental principles of one state does not exercise authority, military force on the claim territory of another state. but those borderlines are significant. very bad things may be happening in savage countries like canada, for example. but the united states government would not be authorized to use military force in canada because canada is sovereign state. so that is a kind of limitation on state power and has a very important goal of trying to maintain a less warlike, more peaceful international order. on the other hand, internal sovereignty i think it's inherently illiberal. that is to say contrary to the principles of liberty. the classical liberal ideals is to say a law governed state. the law is supreme.

not the sovereign, not the ruler, the king of the president of the parliament, but rather the supremacy of the law. the presentation this afternoon i will talk about that particularly in english context, the emergence of this idea of the rule of law. the state as we know it is the institutionalization of the spoliation or read seeking behavior. and to understand that from afraid of pareto, another great sociologists and economists is to understand the importance of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs because the state successfully claimed a monopoly on legitimate use of violence in some given area, they have the ability to impose relatively small cost of large numbers of people and aggregate the resulting loot, if you will an

award that concentrated benefit to small groups of people. so we heard some examples. imagine we have a tax that is going to attack every american 10 cents a year, spread out over the course of the year. a tiny fraction of a cent per day. no one would notice that. no one would pay any attention to that. but the consequence of that 10 cents per year, that adds up to about $33 million. that's pretty good money. that will attract the attention of someone to do it again access to it. to those who have to pay this tiny, tiny burdens don't even notice it, but those were in a position of the influence of the state will indeed be attracted by $33 million of available loot to be redistributed into their pockets. we could look of this in terms

of a whole range of state behavior, not just the tax system, but even all regulations on the face seemed to have nothing to do with distribution of economic affairs. many years ago i was challenged by someone to pick through the federal register. out of all here reads the federal register. that's about 80,000 pages a year new federal regulations rules in some way or another. we opened it at random and found a new regulation governing broccoli. and what was to be defined as standard to broccoli as opposed to puny or substandard and so on. where does that come from? well, turns out some broccoli producers sat around and said, how big is our broccoli? i was able to be designated